Wait! Wait! Did my eyes just see what I had just saw. The directors are suggesting a redemption of Hans!!!???. This is just a rumour. It can't be true. Just the idea of the directors considering a Hans redemption is heart stopping *breathes heavily*This is could be untrue. I haven't even read the following replies on this topic so...I will calm down.

Wait! Wait! Did my eyes just see what I had just saw. The directors are suggesting a redemption of Hans!!!???. This is just a rumour. It can't be true. Just the idea of the directors considering a Hans redemption is heart stopping *breathes heavily*This is could be untrue. I haven't even read the following replies on this topic so...I will calm down.

Not really the point here, but--if a film doesn't earn enough above and beyond its budget, that's a fine definition of "unsuccessful."

That's nice, but somehow I doubt Disney ever defined Sleeping Beauty as unsuccessful when it was one of the best-sellers the year it was released and probably still makes who knows how many hundreds of thousands every year off Aurora and Maleficent merchandise alone. Anymore than Disney has labeled Tangled as unsuccessful, despite its budget.

Quote:

Yes, every major comeback has had its princess film, but it's not an immutable rule of the universe that it will *always* be that way, and every princess film has not been automatically successful just because its a princess film.

But I think it's pretty easy to tell that a theatrical sequel to a fairy tale that's come the closest any of their films has to reaching The Lion King (their last big seller) in a world where 3D sequels to successful original films generally do well will do well. Whatever happens to Big Hero 6 or Giants or Zootopia has little to no relation to this franchise.

Ummmm, will Grace get in HUGE trouble for leaking Giants before Disney announces it?

Grace also said she thinks that Giants will not go into production, which means after BH6, it's only Zootopia & Moana. 2 features in a 4 year span? And has WDAS officially announced Moana? Zootopia is the only feature officially announced by WDAS after BH6.

O wow, that was the first time watching a Grace Randolph video. What a strange experience.

I think she's got it wrong. Her premise for her whole video was that Disney had a renaissance because they were able to pump out movie after movie... This I believe is fundamentally wrong. Disney entered into their renaissance because they were able to pump out quality movies. This legacy was further enhanced by the fact they were released so quickly, but the speed was not the determining factor.

The golden age and silver age of Disney is just as highly lauded as the renaissance, and those movies were sometimes 3-4 years apart.

Furthermore, she seems to have a problem with the slate of movies not building upon each other in genre and style. I find this rather odd. It seems as if Disney should only be able to run on franchise at a time - i.e. princess films. Anything deterring from that Grace seems to evaluate as a weakness. I think this is very naive. Frozen was able to build onto the success of Tangled without Wreck-it Ralph distracting anything. Giants and Moana can do the same after BH6. I don't understand her logic. Audience aren't going to think "Uhm, Disney made Frozen, then BH6, WTH?? I can't trust their next Princess film, I'm not going to watch it...". Franchise films aren't always released once every year, and yet audience don't mind the gap.

Grace also seems to have a problem/misunderstanding of Disney's secrecy. Just because they are keeping things under wraps doesn't mean they do not have confidence or progress in the films. Pixar's eagerness to announce Newt was perhaps detrimental to the studio because we saw the company's weakness for the first time. She is very naive to think Disney doesn't have other films in the pipeline, and that all they are telling us is all they have. Plus, I think JLee deserves a little holiday after working on two back to back films.

Anyway, I think it's too soon for a thread of a Frozen sequel. I have no clue what would the story be about...I wouldn't like the most generic storylines like "Elsa gets a boyfriend with powers opposite hers" or "Elsa meets other element benders like herself", those stories have been done to death.

Yeah same here. Though it's going to happen because money talks.

Again, same here. I would hate for it to turn in Captain Planet or Avatar The Last Airbender.

But I think it's pretty easy to tell that a theatrical sequel to a fairy tale that's come the closest any of their films has to reaching The Lion King (their last big seller) in a world where 3D sequels to successful original films generally do well will do well. Whatever happens to Big Hero 6 or Giants or Zootopia has little to no relation to this franchise.

I must differ. Critical and financial response to other Disney films—and the franchise/3-films-a-year factory known as Dreamworks Animation—between now and then *will* have an affect on how F2 is received, one way or another. I hope the other Disney films do well, not just because I like to see the studio succeed and I enjoy good films more than mediocre ones, but because I shudder to imagine a world in which the only great successes the studio enjoys are princess musicals—and I hate the thought that franchise-building could become the studio’s primary goal. Of course Frozen has every chance to do well, but what does “well” mean? F2 could be one of the top-grossing films of 2018 while still under-grossing Frozen by nearly a half billion dollars.

What about all the crazy Elsanna fans that'll get angry at the inevitable "Male love interest for Elsa" being brought in?

At least that has a legitimate reason to the madness (ie: the pisspoor portrayal of women in media). The Hans fans who think he should become Saint Hans just because he's hot are just flat-out crazy. It reminds me of all those crazy tweets from girls about how the Boston bomber was innocent because he was a hot teenager.

Who have you been hanging out with ? Because all of my Frozen friends who like Hans, they are all fully aware that he's a dangerous person, criminal, villian, has done terrible and disgusting things, and has been terribly abusive. I don't know where this " awwh, he's a cute boy so he must be saved "~ thing is coming from, because imo, he's ugly. Ginger sideburns ? Ugh. No. Some do find him attractive, though those exact same people have also bashed him with every insult imaginable, and hate him for using and abusing Anna.

Also what I've picked up on Tumblr in like 2. 5 mins of searching

-As for his character, there’s still a lot unknown/unconfirmed about him and I just love how that is bc I can fill in the gaps with my own headcanons and interpretations of him. His whole character just fascinates me, honestly. I find him interesting and im curious and I just want to know more about how someone like him ticks

-Hans may be my favourite character but that doesn’t diminish the burning need I have to see him getting his ass handed to him by life

-I think they did give us such an interesting character to chew over in Hans by telling us as little as they did. (Which is kind of why I don’t want a Frozen 2, because somehow I feel like they’ll ruin it, but that’s going OT.) And I personally enjoy watching the constant struggle within the fandom over how to interpret him in fanfics/art, because that just adds to the appeal and the mystery.

-As a hans fan, I not only want to kiss the guy, but also tell him he’s a jerk then find out what makes him tick. His looks are cool yes, but I think im far more interested in his mind and actions throughout the movie. That’s much more to me than anything else

There is nothing wrong with liking/ enjoying a villian, whether if you think that he's/ she's the hottest thing that has ever grace the room, or the ugliest. Hans fans like Hans because he's interesting, he's a interesting villian, or we feel like he's interesting, and we enjoy the mystery.

Hans is my fave Disney villian, and I'm sure you have yours. I have never called Maleficent/ Gaston/ Frollo/ Share Khan/ Jafar/ Cruella or Scar fans annoying, and nobody should. Because we all have that Disney villian that we enjoy his/ her evil and character overall.

I also see nothing wrong with him redeeming, because I would prefer a Disney villian for once, that's not a side-villian or a villian-sidekick like Iago to stop and realize " oh, crapcakes, I have extremely messed up, and I have done wrong and terrible things '' It won't be all rainbows and sunshine, he's going to struggle, and the girls are going to struggle to forgive him, and all for good reasons. Hans is still going to be punished, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's hanged/ beheaded at the end, for his crimes.

Which I'm sure most of you all will enjoy, and will have some spare popcorn at the ready

Your doubt is irrelevant to the facts. Read one of the histories of the studio, or one of Walt’s biographies, or even the official company line in The Art of Walt Disney or Disney’s Art of Animation.

Your idea of "facts" is irrelevant. You go read one of the histories, or biographies or The Art of Walt Disney--it still won't make your opinion more important than anyone else's.

Quote:

"Lady and the Tramp' was followed by another wide-screen feature--one that began with high hopes and ended in disaster.

--The Art of Walt Disney

Quote:

"Sleeping Beauty" was in production longer and cost more than any previous Disney feature. The film lacked the humor and personality that Walt could usually endow. It had impressive design and a titanic dragon fight for the climax, but critics called "Sleeping Beauty" pretentious and audiences were unmoved. The film lost money on its first release."

--Disney's Art of Animation.

My opinion isn't more important than anyone else's--it just happens to be informed.

I already know Sleeping Beauty didn't make much beyond its budget on first release. That doesn't make it a failure, and you're condescension doesn't affect me either way. Stop pretending SB is anything like Treasure Planet, Atlantis, or The Black Cauldron, all films with extremely high budgets that were seen by very few.

Also, read this thread, since I would just be 'stealing' from somebody much more informed than I am. I've never pretended to know everything about the behind-the-scenes of Disney, but, if you'll forgive me, I trust Escapay's opinion by a very large amount more than you.

I already know Sleeping Beauty didn't make much beyond its budget on first release. That doesn't make it a failure, and you're condescension doesn't affect me either way. Stop pretending SB is anything like Treasure Planet, Atlantis, or The Black Cauldron, all films with extremely high budgets that were seen by very few.

Also, read this thread, since I would just be 'stealing' from somebody much more informed than I am. I've never pretended to know everything about the behind-the-scenes of Disney, but, if you'll forgive me, I trust Escapay's opinion by a very large amount more than you.

Albert is well-informed, and I haven't substantially contradicted anything he's written. (BTW, I’m not "pretending" anything, nor have I made any comparison to Treasure Planet or any of those bombs.) I *would* differ with Albert on one respect: marketing costs should absolutely be accounted for. A film that recoups its budget but fails to cover the additional costs of selling the film to the public is a net loser and cannot be considered a success…but there’s no hard-and-fast definition for these things, and marketing costs are rarely made public knowledge the way production budgets are (and even those numbers must be considered suspect).

I don’t understand why you have such a problem with admitting SB’s failure. There’s a great big stack of great films that failed—bombed, even—in initial release that have gone on to become some of the most-acclaimed and revered motion pictures of all time: Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, and It’s a Wonderful Life, just to name a few.

The fact is that looking at the numbers and saying “Sleeping Beauty made $1.7M more than its budget” does not make it successful. If Walt and the the studio felt it was a failure—and they did, financially *and* artistically to a considerable degree—that matters more than anything you or I or Albert or anyone else has to say.

I don’t understand why you have such a problem with admitting SB’s failure.

Because I don't classify a film that does well at the box office a "failure" because of its budget. If that were the case, Tangled would be considered a flop to TP&TF's minimal success. More importantly, it shows that your idea that "princess" fairy tales aren't hitmakers for Disney is ridiculous, because SB could only be designated a failure because of its budget--and absolutely not for lack of audience interest.

Quote:

If Walt and the the studio felt it was a failure—and they did, financially *and* artistically to a considerable degree—that matters more than anything you or I or Albert or anyone else has to say.

Please give me an actual quote from a real person rather than generalized claims in a book written by whoever rather than more "facts" you spout with no sources. Thanks. (I have no doubt Walt didn't like what SB became, overall, from how much it cost to make and how long it dragged on.)

As for people who don't act superior:

thelittleursula wrote:

Hans is my fave Disney villian, and I'm sure you have yours. I have never called Maleficent/ Gaston/ Frollo/ Share Khan/ Jafar/ Cruella or Scar fans annoying, and nobody should. Because we all have that Disney villian that we enjoy his/ her evil and character overall.

I don't mind Hans. The sexual obsession with redeeming him from some people does creep me out though. Where does that .gif come from? Is it from a movie? Just wondering, because the guy is kind of hot.

I don't mind Hans. The sexual obsession with redeeming him from some people does creep me out though. Where does that .gif come from? Is it from a movie? Just wondering, because the guy is kind of hot.

As a Hans fan, I shall speak my mind about his redemption. His redemption could be the following:

1) Something that is trully risque and unique for the villain arch trend. He would still be evil, but have motives and experience that logically apply to the Frozen universe.

2) It can be a cheesy, soppy re-endition that is simply just a waste of time.

3) It could be so terrible that it destroys the universe of Frozen.

The director's redemption idea must be good. If it sucks, fans should have an open opinion about. (That could work in another reality). In this reality, the directors, producers, and cast are ready enough for a sequel.If their pitch is convincing, it will be greenlighted. Like the original movie, it will go through drastic changes, but the Hans redemption arch will be kept hush hush. Eventually that would be leaked and the fandom would explode.

My ideal process is for the directors to ask a control group of Frozen fans about the redemption idea. If it does not work, they would scrap it. At least in this process the studio saves time and money. Oh well. One can dream WDAS being like that.

Really? Because that's where this whole "off-topic" thing you kept going began.

Quote:

Why does your opinion matter more than those of the people who actually make motion pictures?

Why do you need to evade the point?

Everything in that page you posted discusses the film as an artistic failure, and did Neal Gabler speak to Walt personally because there is no quote there. The film still made more than its colossal budget, which was a colossal intake. Nothing about its intake was a "failure," more the idea of pouring money a higher degree of animation than normal (even for those days) that was unnecessary was a failure. But I'm not going any further, because none of your overreaching has changed my opinion on anything I've said. I'm sure you'll find somebody else to "prove wrong" over X issue in 5 minutes' time.

Candy-Bonita95 wrote:

Like the original movie, it will go through drastic changes, but the Hans redemption arch will be kept hush hush. Eventually that would be leaked and the fandom would explode.

Hopefully they'll do a better job at keeping things secret than they have so far.

Quote:

My ideal process is for the directors to ask a control group of Frozen fans about the redemption idea. If it does not work, they would scrap it. At least in this process the studio saves time and money. Oh well. One can dream WDAS being like that.

I wonder if they do have those kind of surveys early on? I know they have screenings, but aren't those pretty far along for significant plot changes? Although I guess Aladdin was completely re-hauled after an early screening.

I dunno, I just cant see Disney redeeming the villain(one who ruthlessly planned to kill the 2 princess leads without any remorse) of a movie whose core audience are soccer moms & their tutu wearing daughters. I can see them arguing that as cool & risque as it would be, it would also set a bad example to their prime audience.

if this were Once Upon a Time, Heroes(a show that did something similar with its main villian and greatly suffered for it, btw), Dc/Marvel comic book series, an anime etc... I could see it hapenning. But not in a Disney princess film.

I hate it when people say Atlantis: The lost Empire was a flop when they're were 4 other films in the 2000s that did worse at the Boxoffice. According to Box Office Mojo:

Atlantis: The Lost Empire's Budget was $120mil/grossed $186mil worldwide.

The Emperor's New Groove's Budget was $100mil/grossed $169mil worldwideHome on the Range's Budget was $110mil/grossed $104mil worldwideMeet the Robinson's Budget is N/A & only grossed $169mil worldwideTreasure Planet's Budget was $150mil/grossed only $109mil worldwide

New Groove out grossed Atlantis by only $3mil according to budget but was $17mil off in worldwide receipts.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 99 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum